Indiana's Population Gains: What's Our Rank?

Download
spreadsheet with detailed
population change data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia

In December, the U.S. Census Bureau released new population estimates
for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. According to these
figures, Indiana’s population had grown to almost 6.2 million by
the summer of 2003, and the state kept its rank as the 14th largest. Lest
the reader think the question in this article’s title has been thoroughly
answered in the first paragraph, let us continue on and explore a variety
of ways to answer it.

Among its Midwestern neighbors, Indiana is holding its own—but
in fractions. Indiana’s annual rate of growth during these early
years of the new century continues to be less than 1 percent and is reminiscent
of the 1980s. The latest data show Indiana’s growth rate between
2002 and 2003 was 0.6 percent, only 0.1 percentage points higher than
the growth of the Midwest and 0.2 percentage points higher than that of
the Northeast (see Table 1).

The estimates show the continued shift of the population to the southern
and western portions of the United States (see Figure 1). The four states
with the fastest growth from 2002 to 2003 share warm weather characteristics.
They are Nevada, with a 3.4 percent growth rate; Arizona, at 2.6 percent
(and this state will likely surpass Indiana’s population by the
end of the decade); Florida, at 2 percent; and Texas, at 1.8 percent.

Notable exceptions to the frequently observed relationship between warmer
weather and higher population growth rates are Idaho and Delaware, which
rank fifth and seventh, respectively. California and Hawaii round out
the top 10. By this particular measure, Indiana holds the distinction
of being ranked 31st.

Of course, if we focus on changes in absolute numbers, we paint a somewhat
different picture (see Figure 2). By this criterion, a slightly larger
group of cold-weather states gets a piece of the high-growth action.

While
California, Texas and Florida overwhelmingly dominate this contest of sheer
numbers, the states of Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland and New
York each make a very respectable showing (see Table 2). How does the Hoosier
state compare via this measure? We fared a bit better than we did by percentage,
clocking in at number 18 with an increase of 38,730 people.

An Opportunity to Offset Brain Drain?

Notably, North Dakota and the District of Columbia were the only areas
to lose population during the 2002 to 2003 time period, decreasing by
74 and 5,773 people, respectively. Interestingly, the district added nearly
50,000 nonfarm jobs between 1998 and 2002, while experiencing a population
gain of fewer than 4,000 over the same period; thus, people holding those
jobs seem more likely to live in surrounding states. In light of this,
perhaps Maryland’s growth is not quite as surprising.

In any case, the long travel times for those commuting workers, combined
with the high cost of living in the district, may encourage some D.C.
employees to eventually seek employment elsewhere. In fact, this was the
case for Amber Dodez-Kostelac, IBRC data manager. Kostelac explains, “Although
entry-level positions attract college graduates across the nation to the
district, oftentimes the cost of living in D.C. is so expensive that these
new graduates find themselves living in surrounding states such as Virginia,
Maryland and, in some cases, as far as West Virginia.”

Could it be that we have uncovered a specific opportunity to help offset
Indiana’s so-called brain drain? Our relatively low cost of living
is one thing that could be leveraged to try to offset, as well as slow
down, brain drain. Of course, brain drain is a topic deserving of its
own article; but for our current purposes, suffice it to say that such
efforts would help preserve our relative standing in the population growth
competition at hand.

Progress So Far This Decade

Comparing nearby states, the estimated population growth from July 1,
2000, to July 1, 2003, was about the same for Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
(each at 1.7 percent), and slightly more in Wisconsin (1.8 percent). Growth
was relatively slow for Michigan (1.2 percent) and Ohio (0.6 percent).
However, all of these were lower than the growth of the nation over the
same period (3.1 percent).

Of the 10 states that have a population estimate between 5 million and
7.4 million for 2003, Indiana ranked ninth in growth over the three-year
period (see Table 3). Only Massachusetts had slower growth, yielding an
increase of just 1.1 percent. Arizona tops this list of peers, stampeding
along at an 8 percent three-year growth rate.

Our immediately trailing peer is the state of Washington, with a 2003
estimate of about 6.1 million. Although we’ve managed to edge out
that state so far, it has a three-year growth rate of 3.7 percent, which
is 2 percentage points higher than ours. If these trends continue, Washington’s
population will exceed Indiana’s by almost 60,000 in the summer
of 2006. Sticking out our necks a bit further with our three-year growth
assumptions, Indiana’s population would extend about 20,000 beyond
that of Massachusetts by July of 2024. Is anyone taking any bets on that?

Carol O. Rogers
Associate Director, Indiana Business Research Center,
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University

Vincent Thompson
Economic Analyst, Indiana Business Research Center,
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University